It’s been a while since I’ve written directly toward my years-long rally against our current approach to Incident Command System (ICS) training. Some of these themes I’ve touched on in the past, but recent discussions on this and other topics have gotten the concept of our biases interfering with progress stuck in my head.
It is difficult for us, as humans, to move forward, to be truly progressive and innovative, when we are in a way contaminated by what we know about the current system which we wish to improve. This knowledge brings with it an inherent bias – good, bad, or otherwise – which influences our vision, reasoning, and decisions. Though on the other hand, knowledge of the existing system gives us a foundation from which we can work, often having awareness of what does and does not work.
I’m sure there have been some type of psychological studies done on such things. I’ve certainly thought about, in my continued rally against our current approach to ICS training, what that training could look like if we set individuals to develop something new if they’ve never seen the current training. Sure, the current training has a lot of valuable components, but overall, it’s poorly designed, with changes and updates through decades still based upon curriculum that was poorly developed, though with good intentions, so long ago.
In recent months, having had discussions with people about various things across emergency management that require improvement, from how we assess preparedness, to how we develop plans, to how we respond, and even looking at the entire US emergency management enterprise itself. Every one of these discussions, trying to imagine what a new system or methodology could look like, with every one of these people (myself included), were infected by an inherent bias that stemmed from what is. Again, I’m left wondering, what would someone build if they had no prior knowledge of what currently exists.
Of course, what would be built wouldn’t be flawless. To some solutions, those of us in the know may even shake our heads, saying that certain things have already been tried but were proven to fail (though perhaps under very different circumstances which may no longer be relevant). Some solutions, however, could be truly innovative.
The notion, perhaps, is a bit silly, as I’m not sure we could expect anyone to build, for example, a new ICS curriculum, without having subject matter expertise in ICS (either their own or through SMEs who would guide and advise on the curriculum). These SMEs, inevitably, would have taken ICS training somewhere along their journey.
All that said, I’m not sure it’s possible for us to eliminate our bias in many of these situations. Even the most visionary of people can’t shed that baggage. But we can certainly improve how we approach it. I think a significant strategy would be having a facilitator who is a champion of the goal and who understands the challenges, who can lead a group through the process. I’d also suggest having a real-time ‘red team’ (Contrarian?) element as part of the group, who can signal when the group is exercising too much bias brought forth from what they know of the current implementation.
In the example of reimagining ICS training, I’d suggest that the group not be permitted to even access the current curriculum during this effort. They should also start from the beginning of the instructional design process, identifying needs and developing training objectives from scratch, rather than recycling or even referencing the current curriculum. The objectives really need to answer the question – ‘What do we want participants to know or do at the completion of the course?’. Levels of training are certainly a given, but perhaps we need to reframe to what is used elsewhere in public safety, such as the OSHA 1910.120 standard which uses the levels of Awareness, Operations, Technician, and Command. Or the DHS model which uses Awareness, Performance, and Management & Planning. We need to further eliminate other bias we bring with us, such as the concept of each level of training only consisting of one course. Perhaps multiple courses are required to accomplish what is needed at each level? I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but all of these things, and more, should be considered in any real discussion about a new and improved curriculum.
Of course, any discussions on new and improved ICS curriculum need to begin at the policy level, approving the funding and the effort and reinforcing the goal of having a curriculum that better serves our response efforts.
How would you limit the influence of bias in innovation?
© 2024 Tim Riecker, CEDP
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 
While not an EM, I find your diatribe perplexing and inane, and more than a little disconcerting, I mean no offense by this. Why, may I ask would you want to re-invent the wheel? Countless hours have been invested into a program of response that been tested at various places, in varying scenarios, with diverse personalities, and with differing results across the country, and while perhaps found lacking in areas, there is always the AAR-IP to point out those deficiencies and begin the repair process. If the system is found continually lacking then the problem is not with the system but perhaps in either the repair approach or the mindset of the individuals implementing the repair. While imperfect people can only produce imperfect solutions, improvement can be seen and accomplished to more meet the need of the community and improve the response.
I am certain that as an EM you have seen far more of the imperfections of the ICS sytem than I, but in my limited experience and exposure I am quite impressed with the scope and complexity of the thought and planning that has gone into the system. to start that process anew with inexperienced folks, from a ground zero point, seems to me to be somewhat analogous to Sisyphus and his rock. We do have working groups and various other committees whose task it is to recommend or actually make changes to policy and procedure, I submit that if the system is not being advanced they may well be part of the problem, and hence the change that needs made is to replace them.
As I stated I am not an EM, but I am very supportive of the ICS, and strive to do my level best with my small portion of involvement. When an individual of your obvious experience and expertise take issue with the program we are trying to follow, and finds such a level of fault with the guidelines, we voluteers and responders begin to question and doubt the sensibility of continuing down the path we have chosen. Response and mitigation are largely based in a positive outlook, situational training, and with expectations of a successful outcome driving the individual to excel. I for one look to the EM, and the deputies, leaders, and managers to have a firm grasp of the situation and their needed response to it, if that falters what effect has that on the outcome?
Perhaps my bias is too deeply rooted to allow me to join your contrarian outlook on this matter. I am all for, if the system is broke fix it, but an overhaul as you propose here seems too monumental a task, especially for inexperienced individuals much like we all were pre 911. I believe the syatem can be fixed if we all put a sincere effort into “fixin’ what is broke”
Thank you for an excellent monthly newsletter, I learn something new or look at something slightly differently each month. I apologize if I have overstepped my bounds here, but I am biased I do believe the system can and does work.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think you have missed one VERY critical point… I’m not looking to retool ICS, but rather ICS training. I’m a big proponent of ICS. As a practitioner, I know first hand that it works and how it works. As an instructor (and someone who once took these classes a long time ago), the curriculum does us a significant disservice.
Early in the article, I link to my history of ‘ICS Training Sucks’ articles. If you have a chance, you might want to dig into them. In those I explore a lot of the reasons why the training is deficient.
I hope this clears things up.
Thank you for reading!
Thank You! I will take your advice and research your previous comments..
AL M
Just found your blog, and was very happy to find it. I look forward to reading through the archived posts and reading your newest thoughts and articles. In rergds to ICS training I totally agree. In all fairness though a lot of our training needs an overhaul.
Cheers
Kelley
Thanks for reading!